SSOD: Patient opinions and utilisation

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Surgeon Specific Outcome Data: patient opinion and utilisation of a new health policy. A cross sectional survey and data extraction study.

  • IRAS ID

    193844

  • Contact name

    Marc Williams

  • Contact email

    marc.williams@nbt.nhs.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    North Bristol NHS Trust

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    0 years, 7 months, 31 days

  • Research summary

    Consultant surgeons in the UK have been required to submit the results of certain operations to the public domain since 2012. The introduction of SSOD has divided opinion. Proponents suggest that it benefits patients by allowing transparency and highlighting poorly performing surgeons. However, concerns exist that SSOD may cause risk-averse behaviour with suggestions that some surgeons choose not take on higher risk cases.

    The majority of literature that looks at this issue mainly consists of editorials. Although the policy has been implemented since 2012, to date there has been no qualitative data assessing the opinions of patients towards the policy. By considering the opinions of patients who are about to undergo surgery we suggest that the policy may be refined to the benefit of patients and surgeons.

    A sample of approximately 15-20 patients awaiting nephrectomy at North Bristol NHS Trust will be invited to interview to assess their knowledge and opinion of the new policy. We suggest that the patient will be asked to take part in the study when they discuss their operation with their respective surgeon. At this stage the patient will take an information leaflet about the study home with them so that they are allowed appropriate time to think about taking part. The patient will then be contacted by the Chief Investigator approximately 1 week later. Patients will be interviewed after their pre-operative assessment. The interview will is expected to last up to 30-40 minutes.

    It is hoped that all patients will be interviewed over a 6 month period. Interviews will then be transcribed and analysed to identify key themes. By identifying key themes we aim to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the policy so that it may be improved.

  • REC name

    South West - Frenchay Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    16/SW/0103

  • Date of REC Opinion

    31 May 2016

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion